Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: jonc Date: Mar 28, 2007 9:45am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Copyright

This is an archive, not a commercial site. Comparing it to YouTube is misleading. What's posted here is not for personal profit. It's not different from a library or a museum. The process for opting out is simple enough, but the converse, as you suggest, would be impractical. IA would have to verify millions of websites for the owners' permissions.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: English librarian Date: Mar 29, 2007 9:37am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Copyright

Thank for picking up on my post, I appreciate it.

Can I offer you the following comments:

Your point is very valid: "This is an archive, not a commercial site." However, it has no legal significance - the IA is not a *legal deposit library*, and is not protected by the copyright exceptions that the British Library and Library of Congress enjoy - these *are* legal deposit libraries, protected in national and international law. I think the IA should have this protection, but it doesn't and this must be acknowledged by us all. What we should ask our national legislators to do is extend legal deposit print copyright entitlements to the IA's web role and protect it from vexatious and ruinous litigation. However, if we don't lobby for this sort of change to international copyright treaty law, the incredible service that IA gives to the knowledge community could be destroyed in a few weeks by a vengeful rights owner with an interest in punitive litigation. Thus, although morally you are right in saying

"It's not different from a library or a museum"

legally, there is every difference in the world. So I repeat my suggestion that each national jurisdiction needs to pass a legal deposit act that embraces the IA as a distinct legal entity. Have a look at the UK legislation:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030028.htm

especially the non-print publication clauses and then reconsider your statement:

"IA would have to verify millions of websites for the owners' permissions."

It wouldn't need to do this if an all-encompassing legal deposit act gave it this permission, while also invoking say a new WIPO treaty in the process as justification! If you guys, who, like me, are the friends of the IA, don't understand these issues and lobby for this change, then the IA could disappear without trace. I rely on the IA to archive the web content that I have been instrumental in creating, so I don't want to see it lost.

Sorry, but I really care about this issue!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: schmorp Date: Jun 10, 2007 6:57am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Copyright

First of all, IANAL.

However, law is not to be applied blindly or without common sense. Lets try to get the perspective in this case:

Looking at a webpage is impossible without copying the content many times (e.g. from the server disk to the memory, then the network, between many routers, to memory on the client etc. etc.).

Publishing a webpage implicitly gives consent to this process. Law has no problems with that (if it had, consider a case where somebody pastes a url into some chat room (e.g. http://xxx/niceimage.png) and then starts suing people because he didn't give consent to them copying that image to their machine. Doesn't work, try it). The concept is called bona fide: archive.org makes a copy on the bona fide assumpton that you agree to copy the content.

You cannot do anything about that legally. What you can do is, if you published the content in error (or for other reasons), tell archive.org that they should remove the content as you do not want it copied or used in the way archive.org uses it. The process to do that already exists, as others pointed out, and is also rpetty standard (which is not a requirement, btw.).

The executive summary is: you can ask archive.org to remove the content. You can even force them to do so. You can complain about archive.org copying your copyrighted content, but legally there is nothing you can do to prevent it except by a) not publishing the content in the first place and b) notifying each downloader explicitly that he/she/it must not download that content. The latter is solely your job, archive.org doesn't need express permission to copy content published on the www, simply assuming you agree because you made it available easily is enough, copyright or not.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: lightningz Date: Jun 17, 2007 4:09pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Copyright

I am a webmaster of 12 years and yes you can sue for people posting links to your site with out asking. But it must be stated on your site that the user is nat aload to do so. I won $10.000 off some one for doing it on a site of mine.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: adisonedu Date: Sep 25, 2007 10:05pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Copyright

Yes you may take the route to sue someone over their link to you but why, and why would you do it for 10,000? where do you get a figure like that?

I have seen a kkk site link to the naacp and even they cannot get the link off of that site.

You must be a legal god...

Preston
http://www.adison.edu
http://www.kidssearch.biz

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mxs Date: Jul 2, 2007 5:27pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Copyright

You are probably referring to bandwidth-stealing or misappropriation of materials on their website. Me simply placing a link to http://www.msnbc.com/ even if they state on msnbc.com that they do not want me to link there is not grounds for any sane legal argument. Even if you link to one of their stories, you have nothing to worry about (although there have been some interesting opinions on so-called deep-linking in various countries).

If I were to embed a video or image from msnbc.com without permission and misappropriating it as my own, there may be a problem (though a savvy legal mind would conjure up the possibility of blocking based on the Referer HTTP-header).

I'm sorry, I simply do not believe your story. You may have been awarded $10,000 in damages, but it was not for somebody simply placing a hypertext link, no matter what the page being linked to says.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: letizammon Date: May 11, 2007 6:52pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Copyright

I appreciate your opinion. But you can't expect people contacting you to ask if you want to restrict the access to the information that you made PUBLICLY accessible. The legislation is made to protect everybody, not a specific person at a specific time.
The fact of the matter is that if you really interested and supportive of that idea, you should not use any search engines like Google, yahoo considering that they don’t ask you if you if they can search your site. But same talking I bet you don’t mind the attention your web page is getting because of it.
Bottom line is if you want something being private you should not put it public.
Kind of like with the don’t call us list. You have to put your own phone number in there. No one is going to call and ask you if you want it there. And no one is going to keep calling you to be sure that you didn’t change your mind.
This is the place to say I am amazed with the work that the creators of this site did. THANK YOU for your hard work and the money you invested in that project. Preserving all that human knowledge is quite a noble deed, you should be very proud of it.